Hi Gez,
Gez wrote:
<blockquote>
It's clear there is no point in continuing to debate this issue. Any
serious points are ignored, and I think you're right in that this
issue is a foregone conclusion.
</blockquote>
Unfortunately, I think that you have a point here.
As an advocate of Web Standards, I was going to chip in and highlight some
of the benefits of validity in relation to accessibility as you have.
I was going to ask for somebody in the *against* camp to do the opposite so
that a simple "pros-cons" analysis could be performed. (I have a feeling
that many could predict the outcome).
I was going to ask how one W3C-WG could even contemplate delivering guidance
that diminished the importance of the outputs of another W3C-WG.
I was going to mention that I believed that this issue would not be resolved
here as there are too many conflicting views, the usual scenario, whether
backed up with evidence or not. I believe that the issue will be resolved at
some future face to face that most cannot or may not attend.
I was going to say that the outcomes of systems developed in this way, i.e.
with little or no stakeholder involvement, are likely to be that the vast
majority of active commercial Web Developers will choose to ignore this
version of WCAG as they have the previous. Either because it is too complex
in their assessment or because they have had little or no input.
I was going to mention that interpretations of WCAG 1.0 are still being
debated with little consensus as we speak. Organisations such as GAWDS
www.gawds.org, amongst others, debate the issues to such an extent that its
active members have virtually re-written WCAG 1.0 and decided amongst
themselves which criteria are in fact important.
Having monitored the posts over the last couple of days, I decided not to
mention any of it. :)
Regards,
Neil Whiteley
Tag2